I’m American – I don’t know if you just want British takes – but I don’t think that there’s a massive functional difference between a (non-parole, don’t know if that’s the case here) life sentence and a death sentence. Both mean that, absent some kind of pardon, the person isn’t going to be interacting with society. Maybe in a situation where someone’s managed to be repeatedly dangerous in a prison with the highest levels of security, a death penalty means that they can’t manage to kill someone in prison. I think that either probably acts as about the strongest deterrent that you can get out of the justice system; I’m a little skeptical that someone’s going to say “I will do this crime if I’m only facing life, but not if death”. That being said, I’ve no particular objection to the death penalty, either, don’t agree with people who have tremendous objection to it. I don’t think that it provides a great deal of extra utility over life-with-no-parole, though.
investigates
I’m assuming that he will eventually become eligible for parole, as it looks like he’s 18:
The 18-year-old refused to come into the courtroom as he was sentenced at Liverpool Crown Court, having been removed from the dock earlier due to disruptive behaviour – which included demands to see a paramedic and shouts of “I feel ill”.
In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for parole after a minimum term (“tariff”) set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a “whole life order”, meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the home secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.
EDIT: Oh, yeah, I guess the title implied a possibility of parole with “…minimum 52 years”
I mean, the guy that killed is own daughter (RIP Sara Sharif) was sent to prison, it took 2 weeks for him to get slashed up by another prisoner. They will be queuing up to get to this guy.
I’m American – I don’t know if you just want British takes – but I don’t think that there’s a massive functional difference between a (non-parole, don’t know if that’s the case here) life sentence and a death sentence. Both mean that, absent some kind of pardon, the person isn’t going to be interacting with society. Maybe in a situation where someone’s managed to be repeatedly dangerous in a prison with the highest levels of security, a death penalty means that they can’t manage to kill someone in prison. I think that either probably acts as about the strongest deterrent that you can get out of the justice system; I’m a little skeptical that someone’s going to say “I will do this crime if I’m only facing life, but not if death”. That being said, I’ve no particular objection to the death penalty, either, don’t agree with people who have tremendous objection to it. I don’t think that it provides a great deal of extra utility over life-with-no-parole, though.
investigates
I’m assuming that he will eventually become eligible for parole, as it looks like he’s 18:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_England_and_Wales
EDIT: Oh, yeah, I guess the title implied a possibility of parole with “…minimum 52 years”
He’s 18 and is in for murdering children.
He is going to get absolutely eaten alive.
I mean, the guy that killed is own daughter (RIP Sara Sharif) was sent to prison, it took 2 weeks for him to get slashed up by another prisoner. They will be queuing up to get to this guy.